Profile cover photo
Profile photo
Richard Hake
106 followers
106 followers
About
Richard's posts

Post has attachment

Post has attachment
Some subscribers to Google Plus might be interested in the following two articles on the possibility of psychology education researchers learning from physics education researchers [Note: if clicking on any of the URLs below yields code then click on  "View"/"Reload Page"]:

Hake, R.R.  2015a. "What Might Psychologists Learn from the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Physics?" online as a 246 KB pdf at <http://bit.ly/19MnIta>; accepted for publication in the March 2015 issue of the "Journal of Teaching and Learning in Psychology"  <http://bit.ly/18RMcA7> . This is a weak version of my article that's been eviscerated by being forced into conformity with the overly prescriptive APA style.
Hake, R.R.  2015b. "What Might Psychologists Learn from the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Physics?" online as a 393 KB pdf at <http://tinyurl.com/pa2yltu>; submitted on 18 Feb 2015 to the "Journal of Teaching and Learning in Psychology" <http://bit.ly/18RMcA7>. This is a strong  version of my article that was rejected because (a) the editors thought that it was too long, and (b) it failed to adhere to the overly prescriptive dictates of APA Style.

Key phrases: Teaching and Learning, Psychologists, APA Style, APS Style, Regan Gurung, Eric Landrum, SoTL

Richard Hake, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Indiana University; LINKS TO: Academia <http://bit.ly/a8ixxm>; Articles <http://bit.ly/a6M5y0>; Blog <http://bit.ly/9yGsXh>; Facebook <http://on.fb.me/XI7EKm>; GooglePlus <http://bit.ly/KwZ6mE>; Google Scholar <http://bit.ly/Wz2FP3>; Linked In <http://linkd.in/14uycpW>; Research Gate <http://bit.ly/1fJiSwB>; Socratic Dialogue Inducing (SDI) Labs <http://bit.ly/9nGd3M>; Twitter <http://bit.ly/juvd5

 

Some Google Plusers might be interested in an article "What Might Psychologists Learn from the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Physics?" [Hake (2014)]

 The ABSTRACT reads:

 *****************************************************

In this article I:

 (a) note that some physicists have been engaged in the "Scholarship of Teaching and Learning"  (SoTL) for over four decades; 

 (b) discuss evidence from SoTL in physics for the approximately two-standard-deviation superiority in average pre-to-post-course normalized gains in conceptual understanding for "interactive engagement" over "traditional" passive-student lecture methods;

 (c) list some crucial operational definitions; 

 (d) present accolades from biologists, economists, and mathematicians for SoTL in physics;

 (e) discuss an apparent deficiency of SoTL in psychology: the missing "Psychology Concept Inventory";

 (f) list 14 hard won lessons from SoTL in physics that may be of value to psychologists;

 (g) conclude from all the above that it's conceivable that psychologists might learn something from SoTL in physics.

****************************************************

 
To access the complete 312 kB article please click on <http://bit.ly/1wN58pS>.

 

Richard Hake, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Indiana University; Honorary Member, Curmudgeon Lodge of Deventer, The Netherlands; President, PEdants for Definitive Academic References which Recognize the Invention of the Internet (PEDARRII); LINKS TO: Academia <http://bit.ly/a8ixxm>; Articles <http://bit.ly/a6M5y0>; Blog <http://bit.ly/9yGsXh>; Facebook <http://on.fb.me/XI7EKm>; GooglePlus <http://bit.ly/KwZ6mE>; Google Scholar <http://bit.ly/Wz2FP3>; Linked In <http://linkd.in/14uycpW>; Research Gate <http://bit.ly/1fJiSwB>; Socratic Dialogue Inducing (SDI) Labs <http://bit.ly/9nGd3M>; Twitter <http://bit.ly/juvd52>.


REFERENCES [URL shortened by <http://bit.ly/> and accessed on 31 Oct 2014.]

Hake, R.R. 2014. "What Might Psychologists Learn from the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Physics" submitted to "Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology" <http://bit.ly/1rzcwUo> on 28 Oct 2014; online as 312 kB pdf at <http://bit.ly/1wN58pS>. The abstract and link to the complete post are being transmitted to several discussion lists and are on my blog "Hake'sEdStuff" at <http://bit.ly/1E8xAXI> with a provision for comments. 

Some Google Plusers might be interested in a discussion list post "Re: Scientific American Article on Educational Research and Evaluation" [Hake (2014)]. The abstract reads:

 ******************************************
ABSTRACT: EvalTalk's David Colton wrote at <http://bit.ly/1vuEiDu> (my inserts at ". . . . . . .[[insert]] . . . . . . . . . "

 "A decade ago, the 'American Evaluation Association' . . . . . [[<http://bit.ly/1s1m5Mb>]]. . . . issued a position paper . . . . . .[[(AEA, 2003) at <http://bit.ly/1tgrYsI>,  highly critical of ]]. . . . . . . . the U.S. Dept. of Education's (USDE's) decision to award research grants based on methodology, with experimental and quasi experimental designs given funding prior over other approaches . . . . . . .[["experimental" is RCT enthusiasts' code for methodology utilizing "Randomized Control Trails" (RCTs)]]. . . .  So I was very interested in an article in this month's 'Scientific American' which describes the results of this process ten years out: 'The Science of Learning' . . . . . . .[[Kantrowitz (2014), re-titled in the online version "Scientists Bring New Rigor to Education Research" and online at <http://bit.ly/1v23502>]]. . . . . . . . ."

 In the present post I excerpt and annotate 8 noteworthy passages from Kantrowitz's article dealing with e.g., the RCT debate <http://bit.ly/1vV222A>; the "What Works Clearing House" <http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/>; the "Institute of Education Sciences" (IES) <http://ies.ed.gov/>; Paulo Blikstein's "FabLab" at Stanford <http://bit.ly/1yIcekw>; teacher evaluation <http://bit.ly/1xm6R6b>, class size <http://bit.ly/1naRX27>; student engagement <http://bit.ly/9484DG>, discovery learning <http://bit.ly/1snHAK3>, Grover Whitehurst  <http://bit.ly/RIcEz4>, "Finnish Lessons" <http://bit.ly/JpU9fD>; and "Finnishing Touches" <http://bit.ly/Ixkqa7>.
********************************

 To access the complete 131 kB post please click on <http://bit.ly/1smsIKA>.

 Richard Hake, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Indiana University. LINKS TO: Academia <http://bit.ly/a8ixxm>; Articles <http://bit.ly/a6M5y0>; Blog<http://bit.ly/9yGsXh>; Facebook <http://on.fb.me/XI7EKm>; GooglePlus<http://bit.ly/KwZ6mE>; Google Scholar <http://bit.ly/Wz2FP3>; Linked In<http://linkd.in/14uycpW>; Research Gate <http://bit.ly/1fJiSwB>; Socratic Dialogue Inducing (SDI) Labs <http://bit.ly/9nGd3M>; Twitter <http://bit.ly/juvd52>.

 

REFERENCES [URL shortened by <http://bit.ly/> and accessed on 10 Oct 2014.]

Hake, R.R.  2014, "Re: Scientific American Article on Educational Research and Evaluation" "online onthe OPEN! AERA-L archives at <http://bit.ly/1smsIKA>. The abstract and link to the complete post are being transmitted to several discussion lists and are also on my blog "Hake'sEdStuff" 

Some Google Plusers might be interested in a discussion list post "Re: Teaching and Learning" [Hake (2014)].  The abstract reads:

**********************************
ABSTRACT: GS Chandy (2014) in his Math-Teach post titled "Re: Khan Academy 2.0" at <http://bit.ly/1tGPvAN> wrote: "At its core, teaching has to be about helping the student to learn."

 To which math education guru Robert Hansen responded at <http://bit.ly/YYpwJJ>: "teaching is about teaching things. That is pedagogy. In an ideal world, every student would be able to learn every thing the teacher teaches. It is only (relatively) recently that teaching took on the role of learning, or better known as remediation, and quite frankly, not only does it suck at it, the more you make teaching about learning, the less you make it about teaching, until such point, it isn't about teaching at all. Or learning."

 For a more informed view of the relationship of teaching to learning see "From Teaching to Learning: A New Paradigm for Undergraduate Education" ]Barr & Tagg (1995)] at <http://bit.ly/8XGJPc>. They wrote: "A paradigm shift is taking hold in American higher education. In its briefest form, the paradigm that has governed our colleges is this: A college is an institution that exists to provide instruction. Subtly but profoundly we are shifting to a new paradigm: A college is an institution that exists to produce learning. This shift changes everything. It is both needed and wanted."
********************************** 

 To access the complete 41 kB post please click on <http://bit.ly/VQx4MP>.

 Richard Hake, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Indiana University; Honorary Member, Curmudgeon Lodge of Deventer, The Netherlands; President, PEdants for Definitive Academic References which Recognize the Invention of the Internet (PEDARRII); LINKS TO: Academia <http://bit.ly/a8ixxm>; Articles <http://bit.ly/a6M5y0>; Blog <http://bit.ly/9yGsXh>; Facebook <http://on.fb.me/XI7EKm>; GooglePlus <http://bit.ly/KwZ6mE>; Google Scholar <http://bit.ly/Wz2FP3>; Linked In <http://linkd.in/14uycpW>; Research Gate <http://bit.ly/1fJiSwB>; Socratic Dialogue Inducing (SDI) Labs <http://bit.ly/9nGd3M>; Twitter <http://bit.ly/juvd52>.

Boy #1: "I taught my dog to whistle."
Boy #2: "I don't hear him whistling."
Boy #1: "I said I taught him.  I didn't say he learned it."
     - Cartoon at <http://bit.ly/1rCyR71>

  REFERENCES [URLs shortened by <http://bit.ly/> and accessed on 28 Aug 2014.]

Hake, R.R.  2014. "Re: Teaching and Learning" online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at <http://bit.ly/VQx4MP>. The abstract and link to the complete post are being transmitted to several discussion lists and are also on my blog "Hake'sEdStuff" at <http://bit.ly/VTuGEG>.

  

 

Some Google Plusers might be interested in a discussion list post "Piaget's Stages? #2" [Hake (2014)]. The abstract reads:

 *******************************************
ABSTRACT: Eric Nelson's (2014a) post "Piaget's Stages?" of 7 August 2014 on the CLOSED! PhysLrnR archives at <http://bit.ly/1orXcKo> initiated a thread which on 12 August 07:36-0700 had grown to 23 posts on the PhysLrnR archives at <http://bit.ly/nG318r>.

 [NOTE: To access the archives of PhysLnR one needs to subscribe :-(, but that takes only a few minutes by clicking on <http://bit.ly/nG318r> and then clicking on "Subscribe or Unsubscribe."  If you're busy, then subscribe using the "NOMAIL" option under "Miscellaneous." Then, as a subscriber, you may access the archives and/or post messages at any time, while receiving NO MAIL from the list!]

 In one of the 23 posts, now updated and placed online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at <http://bit.ly/Y8ZumO>, I point to generally laudatory opinions on Piaget's work by experts Philip Adey, John Anderson, Howard Gardner, Alan Kay, Anton Lawson, Robert Sternberg, Ernst von Glasersfeld, and David Klahr. 

 In addition, aside from his initializing post, Nelson (2014b,c) made two other contributions at <http://bit.ly/1ouGsSQ> and <http://bit.ly/1uP1Zp7> in which he pointed to the work of Kirschner, Sweller, & Clark (KSC) as the definitive word from cognitive science on pedagogical methods. However, not everyone would agree with Nelson's tribute to KSC, as I indicated in "Vague Labels for Pedagogical Methods Should Be Supplemented with Operational Definitions and Detailed Descriptions" [Hake (2014b)] at <http://bit.ly/1jPnKxo>.
*******************************************

 To access the complete 61 kB post please click on <http://bit.ly/Ya4c3G>.

 Richard Hake, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Indiana University. LINKS TO: Academia <http://bit.ly/a8ixxm>; Articles <http://bit.ly/a6M5y0>; Blog <http://bit.ly/9yGsXh>; Facebook <http://on.fb.me/XI7EKm>; GooglePlus <http://bit.ly/KwZ6mE>; Google Scholar <http://bit.ly/Wz2FP3>; Linked In <http://linkd.in/14uycpW>; Research Gate <http://bit.ly/1fJiSwB>; Socratic Dialogue Inducing (SDI) Labs <http://bit.ly/9nGd3M>; Twitter <http://bit.ly/juvd52>.

 "When we say force is the cause of motion we talk metaphysics, and this definition, if we were content with it, would be absolutely sterile. For a definition to be of any use, it must teach us to measure force; moreover, that suffices; it is not at all necessary that it teach us what force is in itself, nor whether it is the cause or the effect of motion." - Henri Poincaré (1905)

 REFERENCES [URLs shortened by <http://bit.ly/> and accessed on 14 Aug 2014.]

Hake, R.R.  2014. "Piaget's Stages? #2," online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at <http://bit.ly/Ya4c3G>. The abstract and link to the complete post are being transmitted to several discussion lists and are also on my blog "Hake'sEdStuff" at/<http://bit.ly/1l7zhQ3>.

 Poincaré, H. 1905. "Science and Hypothesis," Walter Scott Publishing; online at <http://bit.ly/9hVfA8> thanks  to the "Mead Project." A Wikipedia entry on Poincaré is at <http://bit.ly/b4jGVS>.

 

 

 

 

 

Some Google Plusers might be interested an essay "Can the Cognitive Impact of Calculus Courses be Enhanced? Updated on Aug 2014 from a Talk at USC on 24 April 2012" [Hake (2014)]. The abstract reads:

 *************************************************

ABSTRACT: I discuss the cognitive impact of introductory calculus courses after the initiation of the NSF's calculus reform program in 1987. Topics discussed are:

A. What's calculus?

B. Calculus, language of nature and gateway to science, technology,

       engineering, and mathematics.

C. A typical calculus-course problem (even dogs can solve it).

D. NSF's calculus reform effort, initiated in 1987.

E. Assessments bemoan the lack of evidence of improved student learning.

F. A glimmer of hope – the Calculus Concept Inventory (CCI).

G. Typical question of the CCI type (dogs score at the random guessing level).

H. Impact of the CCI on calculus education – early trials.

I. Conclusion.

J. Appendix #1: The Lagrange Approach to Calculus.

K. Appendix #2: Math Education Bibliography.

I conclude that Epstein's CCI may stimulate reform in calculus education, but, judging from the physics education reform effort, it may take several decades before widespread improvement occurs - see the review "The Impact of Concept Inventories On Physics Education and Its Relevance For Engineering Education" [Hake (2011c)] at <http://bit.ly/nmPY8F> (8.7 MB).

With over 500 references and over 600 hot links this report can serve as a window into the vast literature relevant to calculus reform.

*************************************************

 To access the complete 2.8 MB essay please click on <http://bit.ly/1B9dyvD>.

 Richard Hake, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Indiana University. LINKS TO: Academia <http://bit.ly/a8ixxm>; Articles <http://bit.ly/a6M5y0>; Blog <http://bit.ly/9yGsXh>; Facebook <http://on.fb.me/XI7EKm>; GooglePlus <http://bit.ly/KwZ6mE>; Google Scholar <http://bit.ly/Wz2FP3>; Linked In <http://linkd.in/14uycpW>; Research Gate <http://bit.ly/1fJiSwB>; Socratic Dialogue Inducing (SDI) Labs <http://bit.ly/9nGd3M>; Twitter <http://bit.ly/juvd52>.

REFERENCES [URL shortened by <http://bit.ly/> and accessed on 11 Aug 2014.]

Hake, R.R. 2014.  "Can the Cognitive Impact of Calculus Courses be Enhanced? Updated on Aug 2014 from a Talk at USC on 24 April 2012," online at <http://bit.ly/1B9dyvD>.The abstract and link to the complete post are being transmitted to several discussion lists and are also on my blog "Hake'sEdStuff" at <http://bit.ly/1uj8K52>.

 "Mathematics is the gate and key of the sciences. . . .Neglect of mathematics works injury to all knowledge, since he who is ignorant of it cannot know the other sciences or the things of this world. And what is worse, men who are thus ignorant are unable to perceive their own ignorance and so do not seek a remedy."  
          - Roger Bacon (Opus Majus, bk. 1, ch. 4) <http://bit.ly/dzjbWv>


 "To those who do not know mathematics it is difficult to get across a real feeling as to the beauty, the deepest beauty, of nature ... If you want to learn about nature, to appreciate nature, it is necessary to understand the language that she speaks in."
- Richard Feynman (1965, 1994) in "The Character of Physical Law" <http://amzn.to/19vE4AO>


 

 

Post has attachment
Some Google Plusers might be interested in a discussion list post "Elizabeth Green's 'Why Do Americans Stink at Math?' " [Hake (2014)]. The abstract reads:
 
*************************************************
ABSTRACT: Elizabeth Green, in a NYT Magazine article titled "Why Do Americans Stink at Math?" at <http://nyti.ms/1o02vui> wrote: "With the Common Core . . . . . . . . . . . . 

. . . . . . [[<http://www.corestandards.org/>, compatible with the reform math education methods]]. . . .  . . . . 

teachers are once more being asked to unlearn an old approach and learn an entirely new one, essentially on their own. Training is still weak and infrequent, and principals - who are no more skilled at math than their teachers - remain unprepared to offer support. Textbooks, once again, have received only surface adjustments, despite the shiny Common Core labels that decorate their covers. . . . . Left to their own devices, teachers are once again trying to incorporate new ideas into old scripts, often botching them in the process. . . . . . . No wonder parents and some mathematicians denigrate the reforms as "fuzzy math." In the warped way untrained teachers interpret them, they are fuzzy."

 Green's article has prompted at least two threads on discussion lists. One initiated by Wayne Bishop on the OPEN! Math-Teach archives at <http://bit.ly/eOTrs1>. Bishop at <http://bit.ly/1Agrtzv> wrote: "Other than 'Americans Stink at Math', almost everything [Green] says is wrong.  Decades-old (century?) math ed mythology."

 Another initiated by John Clement on the CLOSED! July PhysLrnR archives <http://bit.ly/WQjkCL>. Clement at  <http://bit.ly/1onL1Nr> wrote: (paraphrasing): "Green's very good article is about how the Japanese reformed their math teaching and are now beating us.  Their method resembles "Interactive Engagement" methods in Physics Education Research."

*************************************************

 To access the complete 57 kB post please click on <http://bit.ly/1lERqiv>.

 Richard Hake, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Indiana University. LINKS TO: Academia <http://bit.ly/a8ixxm>; Articles <http://bit.ly/a6M5y0>; Blog <http://bit.ly/9yGsXh>; Facebook <http://on.fb.me/XI7EKm>; GooglePlus <http://bit.ly/KwZ6mE>; Google Scholar <http://bit.ly/Wz2FP3>; Linked In <http://linkd.in/14uycpW>; Research Gate <http://bit.ly/1fJiSwB>; Socratic Dialogue Inducing (SDI) Labs <http://bit.ly/9nGd3M>; Twitter <http://bit.ly/juvd52>.

 

REFERENCES [URL shortened by <http://bit.ly/> and accessed on 25 July 2014.]

Hake, R.R.  "Elizabeth Green's 'Why Do Americans Stink at Math?' " online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at <http://bit.ly/1lERqiv>.The abstract and link to the complete post are being transmitted to several discussion lists and are also on my blog "Hake'sEdStuff" at <http://bit.ly/1up9jez>.

 

 

Post has attachment
Some Google Plusers might be interested in a discussion-list post "Assessment of Undergraduate Student Learning" [Hake (2014)]. The abstract reads:

******************************************************
ABSTRACT: Norman Stahl (2014) of the LrnAsst list has called attention to the AAC&U (2014) report "68 Institutions in Nine States to Pilot New Approach to 
Learning Outcomes Assessment" at <http://bit.ly/1o6Xfsn>. The report states (slightly edited):

 " 'The calls are mounting daily for higher education to be able to show what students can successfully do with their learning,' said AAC&U President Carol Geary Schneider. 'The Multi-State Collaborative is a very important step toward focusing assessment on the best evidence of all: the work students produce in the course of their college studies.'. . . . . . . . . . For more information, see 'VALUE: Valid Assessment of Learning in Undergraduate Education' (AAC&U, 2014b) at <http://bit.ly/1pn6s3u>; and  'MSC: A Multi-State Collaborative to Advance Learning Outcomes Assessment' (SHEEO, 2014) at <http://bit.ly/1mhWSXv>. . . . . ."

This response to the above with its over 50 references and over 80 hot links can serve as a window into the literature of undergraduate learning assessment. It consists of two parts:

PART I: An expurgated and annotated version of a letter in support of the AAC&U's assessment of undergraduate learning titled "It's Time to Get Serious About the Right Kind of Assessment" by Daniel F. Sullivan (2014) at <http://bit.ly/1mg77Rn>. Sullivan is President Emeritus of St. Lawrence University, Senior Advisor to the AAC&U President; and Chair, AAC&U Presidents' Trust.

PART II: A review of assessments of undergraduate learning prior to the AAC&U effort. Updated and revised from "The Physics Education Reform Effort: A Possible Model for Higher Education?" (Hake, 2006a) at <http://bit.ly/9aicfh>.
******************************************************

 To access the complete 115 kB post please click on <http://bit.ly/1tTx5PF>.

 Richard Hake, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Indiana University. LINKS TO: Academia <http://bit.ly/a8ixxm>; Articles <http://bit.ly/a6M5y0>; Blog <http://bit.ly/9yGsXh>; Facebook <http://on.fb.me/XI7EKm>; GooglePlus <http://bit.ly/KwZ6mE>; Google Scholar <http://bit.ly/Wz2FP3>; Linked In <http://linkd.in/14uycpW>; Research Gate <http://bit.ly/1fJiSwB>; Socratic Dialogue Inducing (SDI) Labs <http://bit.ly/9nGd3M>; Twitter <http://bit.ly/juvd52>.

 
REFERENCES [URL shortened by <http://bit.ly/> and accessed on 16 July 2014.]

Hake, R.R. 2014. "Assessment of Undergraduate Student Learning," post of 16 Jul 2014 16:40:53-0700 to AERA-L and Net-Gold. Online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at <http://bit.ly/1tTx5PF>. The abstract and link to the complete post are being transmitted to several discussion lists and are on my blog "Hake'sEdStuff" at <http://bit.ly/1r5fbWs> with a provision for comments.

 

 

 

 

Post has attachment
Some Google Plusers might be interested in a discussion list post "Re: James Hansen's 'Too Little, Too Late? Oops?' " [Hake (2014)]. The abstract reads:

 ************************************

ABSTRACT: Climate scientist James Hansen (2014) <http://bit.ly/omiMY3>, in his report "Too Little, Too Late? Oops?" at <http://bit.ly/1m15lmz> wrote (paraphrasing):

 "Many queries received: is Obama's climate effort 'too little, too late?' Closely related query: are we at an 'oops' moment, a realization that we have pushed the climate system too far, so consequences such as ice sheet disintegration and large sea level rise are now out of our control? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

 The answer re 'too little?' is obvious from the fact that governments, ours included, are allowing and encouraging industry to go after every fossil fuel that can be found. Rather than dwelling on that fact, let's consider the action needed to avoid 'too late'.

 Citizens Climate Lobby <http://citizensclimatelobby.org/> just released a study 'The Economic, Climate, Fiscal, Power, and Demographic Impact of a National Fee-and-Dividend Carbon Tax.' A 3-page summary by Danny Richter is at  <http://bit.ly/1ypEENy>. 

 According to their comprehensive analysis of the impacts of a carbon fee-and-dividend (CF&D) in the United States, with 100% revenue distribution of the money to the public in equal shares as direct payments: the fee would start at $10/ton of CO2 and increase $10/ton each year; 100% of the revenue is returned to households, equal amounts to all legal residents. This approach spurs the economy, increasing the number of jobs by 2.1 million in 10 years. Emissions decrease 33% in 10 years, 52% in 20 years.

 Contrary to the wails of fossil-fuel-industry kingpins, the fossil fuel CF&D stimulates the economy, modernizes infrastructure and saves 13,000 lives per year via improved air quality. GDP increases, with fee-and-dividend causing a cumulative GDP increase of $1.375 trillion.

 Why do these results differ from previous studies concluding that a carbon tax would be costly? The main reason is that other studies do not have 100% recycling of funds to the public; instead part of the money is taken as a tax, to increase the size of government."

************************************

 To access the complete 37 kB post please click on <http://bit.ly/1w3Arx1>.

 Richard Hake, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Indiana University; LINKS TO: Academia <http://bit.ly/a8ixxm>; Articles <http://bit.ly/a6M5y0>; Blog <http://bit.ly/9yGsXh>; Facebook <http://on.fb.me/XI7EKm>; GooglePlus <http://bit.ly/KwZ6mE>; Google Scholar <http://bit.ly/Wz2FP3>; Linked In <http://linkd.in/14uycpW>; Research Gate <http://bit.ly/1fJiSwB>; Socratic Dialogue Inducing (SDI) Labs <http://bit.ly/9nGd3M>; Twitter <http://bit.ly/juvd52>.

 

REFERENCES [URL shortened by <http://bit.ly/> and accessed on 21 June 2014.]

Hake, R.R. 2014. "Re: James Hansen's 'Too Little, Too Late? Oops?' "  Post of 20 Jun 2014 09:08:40 -0700 to AERA-L and Net-Gold. Online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at <http://bit.ly/1w3Arx1>.The abstract and link to the complete post are being transmitted to several discussion lists and are on my blog "Hake'sEdStuff" at <http://bit.ly/SXSnuh> with a provision for comments.

 
Wait while more posts are being loaded